Alaska is suing the CDC too

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Alaska has nothing to gain as the PVSA would still prevent Alaskan cruises.

While they would gain some victory in a reopening order, the Canada ban and the PVSA would leave them where they stand.  Is the Governor of Alaska pushing for Canada to lift its ban?  Is he pushing for an exemption under the PVSA?  He calls the CDC stop order for sailing “arbitrary”, yet he has waited until now to press that claim. Will he claim that the PVSA is arbitrary as well?  Like DeSantis, this is all political posturing. 

[harkinmr]

7 minutes ago, MTAK said:

CDC should have began re-evaluating their risk assessment and planning for this circumstance as soon as vaccines were approved, so they would be prepared to make this determination. If other cruise lines don't want to mandate vaccinations, then they would need to deal with stricter non-vaccination guidance that is already in place. You can't seem to grasp the simple concept that it doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

 

"As soon as vaccines were approved" was last November/December.  The CDC had much bigger fish to fry then as COVID was becoming out of control and until the new administration came into place, there was not a coordinated push to roll out the vaccine.  You have unreasonable expectations as to when the CDC should have re-evaluated risk assessment and changed the CSO.  You keep insisting that vaccines can easily be required under the CSO, when the cruise lines can't reach agreement as to whether they will even mandate them.  The framework is in place and the lines have known since last October what the expectations are.  Now is the time to put up or shut up.  Tell the CDC what your detailed plans are (and not weak tea "proposals") and work with them to get sailing going.  That process has begun as of April 12th.  Hopefully everybody stays with it.

[MTAK]

15 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

You keep insisting that vaccines can easily be required under the CSO

Once again you make an incorrect statement. I've never, ever said that.  Please stop.

[harkinmr]

19 minutes ago, MTAK said:

Once again you make an incorrect statement. I've never, ever said that.  Please stop.

By "implication".  You do know what that means, right?  You should stop.  You want to make easy assessments as to what the CDC can or cannot do and then do not want to be challenged.  Now I'm done.

[MTAK]

If you want me to stop, then quit implying you understand what I'm talking about while continuing to ask silly questions. As a result of this nonsense, you are now the charter member of my ignore list.

[Daniel A]

58 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

That process has begun as of April 12th.  Hopefully everybody stays with it.

Many things are not merely coincidence. 

 

March 26 - Florida sponsors public roundtable meeting with cruise line CEOs.

April 5 - CLIA, which represents 95% of global ocean-going cruise capacity and the largest network of travel agents and agencies specializing in cruise travel, today reiterated its call for the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order (CSO) to be lifted.

April 6 - Carnival Cruise Lines CEO states Carnival may have to pull all ships out of home ports in the US.  This follows other cruise lines actually doing that.

April 8 - Florida files suit against CDC.

 

April 12 - Cruise line executives meet with the White House over CDC shutdown.  White House requires CDC to participate in the meeting.

 

Was the process starting April 12 simply a coincidence or a result of pressure on the CDC?

Edited April 23, 2021 by Daniel A

[harkinmr]

18 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Many things are not merely coincidence. 

 

March 26 - Florida sponsors public roundtable meeting with cruise line CEOs.

April 5 - CLIA, which represents 95% of global ocean-going cruise capacity and the largest network of travel agents and agencies specializing in cruise travel, today reiterated its call for the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order (CSO) to be lifted.

April 6 - Carnival Cruise Lines CEO states Carnival may have to pull all ships out of home ports in the US.  This follows other cruise lines actually doing that.

April 8 - Florida files suit against CDC.

 

April 12 - Cruise line executives meet with the White House over CDC shutdown.  White house requires CDC to participate in the meeting.

 

Was the process starting April 12 simply a coincidence or a result of pressure on the CDC?

None of the actions you listed were going to be any other than political "noise".  The cruise lines are not able to fully set up shop elsewhere and I'm sure the CDC knows that.  The CDC is not afraid of some lawsuit filed by the State of Florida.  And you have gone way out on a limb saying the "White House requires CDC to participate in the meeting".  This administration is not going to step in it like the last one by interfering with the CDC.  They offered a forum for the CDC and the cruise lines to talk.  Which they should have been doing more of all along.  The fact of the matter remains that the CDC has said that the CSO framework will remain in place and that any restart has to be in accord with that.  I don't see any victory in that for the cruise lines, which have pushed through all of the efforts you listed for the CSO to go away.

 

EDIT:  And you left out Senate and House members file bills to mandate that the CDC allow cruising to restart.  We've now seen how that went.

Edited April 23, 2021 by harkinmr

[Daniel A]

6 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

None of the actions you listed were going to be any other than political "noise".  The cruise lines are not able to fully set up shop elsewhere and I'm sure the CDC knows that.  The CDC is not afraid of some lawsuit filed by the State of Florida.  And you have gone way out on a limb saying the "White House requires CDC to participate in the meeting".  This administration is not going to step in it like the last one by interfering with the CDC.  They offered a forum for the CDC and the cruise lines to talk.  Which they should have been doing more of all along.  The fact of the matter remains that the CDC has said that the CSO framework will remain in place and that any restart has to be in accord with that.  I don't see any victory in that for the cruise lines, which have pushed through all of the efforts you listed for the CSO to go away.

You don't think the White House "inviting" the CDC to participate in a forum isn't the same thing as a requirement?  I just don't see the CDC saying "Thanks, but no thanks" to the White House.  I guess I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

 

Telling the CDC to sit down with the cruise industry is not the same thing as interference.  It is doing the same thing Judges do all the time in civil suits.  The judge isn't interfering but he will require 'conferences' to hash out and settle a problem.  This way, the judge avoids making the final decision.

[harkinmr]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

You don't think the White House "inviting" the CDC to participate in a forum isn't the same thing as a requirement?  I just don't see the CDC saying "Thanks, but no thanks" to the White House.  I guess I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

 

Telling the CDC to sit down with the cruise industry is not the same thing as interference.  It is doing the same thing Judges do all the time in civil suits.  The judge isn't interfering but he will require 'conferences' to hash out and settle a problem.  This way, the judge avoids making the final decision.

No, I don't think it is the same thing as a "requirement".  The White House has stood firmly behind the CDC on the cruise shutdown and the CSO.  I'm very certain that there was some discussion between the CDC, HHS and the White House that prompted the sit down.  Maybe to make all that political noise go away?  But, ultimately, what came out of the meeting publicly was a reaffirmation by the CDC that the framework is the way forward. It's very telling that we have heard very little from any of the cruise lines on the meeting. 

[JABTPS]

50 minutes ago, MTAK said:

As a result of this nonsense, you are now the charter member of my ignore list.

Did that to Harkinmr awhile ago.  nice how it just blocks them out !

[mcrcruiser]

To survive  cruises will start &b stop in foreign ports where allowed  .imo ,It may be another year before any ships leave from USA ports  

[MTAK]

2 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

To survive  cruises will start &b stop in foreign ports where allowed  .imo ,It may be another year before any ships leave from USA ports  

I'm beginning to feel the same way.  I have an April 2022 departure out of Ft. Lauderdale, so I'm hoping for a reasonable resolution to this at least by then.  If nothing changes, my backup hope is our embarkation port will be changed, but that might be too much to ask, especially if the airfare is unreasonable.

[mcrcruiser]

2 minutes ago, MTAK said:

I'm beginning to feel the same way.  I have an April 2022 departure out of Ft. Lauderdale, so I'm hoping for a reasonable resolution to this at least by then.  If nothing changes, my backup hope is our embarkation port will be changed, but that might be too much to ask, especially if the airfare is unreasonable.

We have a 18 day cruise to Hawaii  booked  & now I am not counting on this cruise doing  .We had one Hawaii cruise canceled Nov 2020    .Sure HAL can start & stop  in Ensenada Mexico  & get us there & back by bus ;but ,it is a  tough 4 to 5 hour bus trip from San Diego across the border  .However , not sure that they can port in any  of the Hawaiian ports  with the current CDC restrictions 

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, harkinmr said:

No, I don't think it is the same thing as a "requirement".

 

Maybe to make all that political noise go away? 

 

But, ultimately, what came out of the meeting publicly was a reaffirmation by the CDC that the framework is the way forward. It's very telling that we have heard very little from any of the cruise lines on the meeting. 

One of the best ways a leader can issue an order and keep the confidence and goodwill of the subordinate is to give what is called an "implied order."  It tends to soften the communication between supervisor/administrator and subordinate.  They are often issued as a suggestion or an invitation or merely an expression of desire but it remains an order nonetheless.   I have successfully won disciplinary proceedings against employees violating an implied order, including not attending meetings to which the subordinate was 'invited.'  I don't know if you had a boss, but if you did, and he asked you to come to his office, would you reply "No, I wouldn't care to do that." and still be on the payroll the next day?

 

Exactly my point.  The 'political noise' is probably what got the White House involved in the first place. 

 

I don't recall the CDC coming out of the meeting reaffirming that the framework is the (only) way forward.  I seem to recall that 'further discussions would be in order' (my quote, not theirs.)

[Daniel A]

3 hours ago, MTAK said:

If you want me to stop, then quit implying you understand what I'm talking about while continuing to ask silly questions. As a result of this nonsense, you are now the charter member of my ignore list.

I humbly ask you rethink your decision.  Cancel Culture has no legitimate place in our society.  We must know what other people think and believe or we are closing our eyes and ears, which is not a good thing.  

 

You have the ability to not reply anymore, but you should continue to read @harkinmr posts as it gives you understanding about how others see the issues.

 

Dialogue - Good

Silence - Bad

 

[harkinmr]

21 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

 

I don't recall the CDC coming out of the meeting reaffirming that the framework is the (only) way forward.  I seem to recall that 'further discussions would be in order' (my quote, not theirs.)

The CDC issued the following statement to Cruise Week this morning: "Experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and White House staff met with cruise industry leaders and executives to discuss the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order (CSO) on Monday, April 12, 2021. Cruise industry leaders were able to provide input into the phases of the CSO, expressed frustration with the requirements, discussed the incorporation of vaccination requirements into restarting passenger voyages, and expressed the need to establish a working group with industry and CDC to work forward to resume cruising as soon as possible. Cruising will always pose some risk of COVID-19 transmission, and COVID-19 vaccines will play a critical role in the safe resumption of passenger operations. Cruise travelers represent a global population, and as more people are fully vaccinated worldwide, the phased approach of the CSO also allows CDC to incorporate these advancements into planning for the safe resumption of cruise ship travel. CDC is committed to working with the cruise industry and seaport partners to resume cruising following a phased approach required by the CSO. CDC and DHS senior leadership will begin meetings with cruise industry leaders starting this week. The objective of the meetings are to mutually review the top priority issues of the cruise industry to work out implementation details of the CSO, including the impact of vaccines and other scientific developments since the CSO was issued in October 2020. This goal aligns with the desire for the resumption of passenger operations in the United States by mid-summer, expressed by many major cruise ship operators and travelers."

[harkinmr]

3 hours ago, JABTPS said:

Did that to Harkinmr awhile ago.  nice how it just blocks them out !

Yes, it's so awfully hard to have folks disagree with your point of view.  I mean that's not really what discussion forums are supposed to be about.  They are supposed to be echo chambers where only those who agree with each other can hear their thoughts and opinions parroted back to them.🙄

[Daniel A]

2 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

The CDC issued the following statement to Cruise Week this morning: "Experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and White House staff met with cruise industry leaders and executives to discuss the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order (CSO) on Monday, April 12, 2021. Cruise industry leaders were able to provide input into the phases of the CSO, expressed frustration with the requirements, discussed the incorporation of vaccination requirements into restarting passenger voyages, and expressed the need to establish a working group with industry and CDC to work forward to resume cruising as soon as possible. Cruising will always pose some risk of COVID-19 transmission, and COVID-19 vaccines will play a critical role in the safe resumption of passenger operations. Cruise travelers represent a global population, and as more people are fully vaccinated worldwide, the phased approach of the CSO also allows CDC to incorporate these advancements into planning for the safe resumption of cruise ship travel. CDC is committed to working with the cruise industry and seaport partners to resume cruising following a phased approach required by the CSO. CDC and DHS senior leadership will begin meetings with cruise industry leaders starting this week. The objective of the meetings are to mutually review the top priority issues of the cruise industry to work out implementation details of the CSO, including the impact of vaccines and other scientific developments since the CSO was issued in October 2020. This goal aligns with the desire for the resumption of passenger operations in the United States by mid-summer, expressed by many major cruise ship operators and travelers."

What you highlighted is very interesting.  What that tells me is that the CDC has been told to sit down with the cruise industry, work this out and get this problem solved through discussion.  (Arrive at an amicable settlement.)  Until now, CDC wouldn't meet with the cruise industry to discuss matters.  Gee, do you think maybe the CDC was told to sit down and work all this out?  Now it is "to mutually 'review' top priority issues."  It was not that way before the White House got involved (due to 'political noise'?)  Do you believe Rochelle Wilensky's ignoring the letter from Frank Del Rio is contributing to the mutual review of the issues?

 

Talk about political posturing...

 

Why are they now including the Department of Homeland Security in the process?  I thought this is all being handled by CDC expertise...

[harkinmr]

29 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

What you highlighted is very interesting.  What that tells me is that the CDC has been told to sit down with the cruise industry, work this out and get this problem solved through discussion.  (Arrive at an amicable settlement.)  Until now, CDC wouldn't meet with the cruise industry to discuss matters.  Gee, do you think maybe the CDC was told to sit down and work all this out?  Now it is "to mutually 'review' top priority issues."  It was not that way before the White House got involved (due to 'political noise'?)  Do you believe Rochelle Wilensky's ignoring the letter from Frank Del Rio is contributing to the mutual review of the issues?

 

Talk about political posturing...

 

Why are they now including the Department of Homeland Security in the process?  I thought this is all being handled by CDC expertise...

You've made a good point.  I agree that the push to meet was a step in the right direction, and not just to try to tone down the noise.  I don't think that the CDC has been ignoring the cruise lines because there have been numerous references by cruise line heads that they have had discussions before now.  I just don't think those discussions were terribly productive.  The sit down did serve the purpose of getting the CDC to publicly state that they are listening to cruise line "concerns".  I think that the CSO will be modified based on the working group's efforts to the extent that it is practical and makes sense.  But it surely is not going away in its entirety.

 

I don't think Dr. Walensky is "ignoring" Frank Del Rio's letter.  He publicized his email followup after he had met with the CDC, so I believe that he has a response.  No.  But that response is not going to be published, at least not now.  I expect it will be addressed when further adjustments are made to the CSO.

 

I believe that DHS, DOT and the EPA are all involved in the process because the implementation of the framework impacts their agencies in some way.  This has been mentioned before.  I am not aware of all of the intricacies though. 

 

EDIT: Why do you think that we have not heard from cruise line heads (other than Richard Fain) promoting the meeting?

Edited April 23, 2021 by harkinmr

[MTAK]

20 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I humbly ask you rethink your decision.  Cancel Culture has no legitimate place in our society.  We must know what other people think and believe or we are closing our eyes and ears, which is not a good thing.  

 

You have the ability to not reply anymore, but you should continue to read @harkinmr posts as it gives you understanding about how others see the issues.

 

Dialogue - Good

Silence - Bad

 

 

23 hours ago, MTAK said:

In my opinion, an order that is based on risk mitigation should take into account the most effective tool in reducing the spread of the virus, which is an approved vaccine. CDC doesn't have to require vaccine, only take into account the effects it has on these provisions.  It would be to their advantage to reevaluate this, as it would be more legally defensible (in my opinion) but it might also encourage someone like CCL to take the path of least resistance (i.e. require vaccinations).

 

 

Yes Daniel, but it's pretty sad when I have to resort to quoting myself to prove what I actually said when someone repeatedly tries to mischaracterize my posts. To recap, in no way have I stated or implied CDC should require vaccinations, but rather I propose they revise the CSO to provide A) less stringent provisions for those cruise lines who choose to require vaccinations, and B) keep the most stringent provisions in place for the cruise lines who choose not to require vaccinations. It's how bureaucracy is supposed to work - you still give them a choice but create enough red tape for the least desirable option to steer them in the direction you wanted to begin with, without mandating it. My guess is given these options, the CEO's would choose Option A since the process would be more streamlined, and CDC would be happy that everyone on the ships is vaccinated. I think most passengers would be happy as well.  Win-win, is it not? Is my point really that difficult to comprehend?

 

It's especially ironic that the mischaracterization is coming from poster who's so quick to criticize other's lack of research, when I think it's pretty clear in my own quote what I said.  It reaches a point where it is no longer worth the effort to even acknowledge it.

[harkinmr]

34 minutes ago, MTAK said:

 

Yes Daniel, but it's pretty sad when I have to resort to quoting myself to prove what I actually said when someone repeatedly tries to mischaracterize my posts. To recap, in no way have I stated or implied CDC should require vaccinations, but rather I propose they revise the CSO to provide A) less stringent provisions for those cruise lines who choose to require vaccinations, and B) keep the most stringent provisions in place for the cruise lines who choose not to require vaccinations. It's how bureaucracy is supposed to work - you still give them a choice but create enough red tape for the least desirable option to steer them in the direction you wanted to begin with, without mandating it. My guess is given these options, the CEO's would choose Option A since the process would be more streamlined, and CDC would be happy that everyone on the ships is vaccinated. I think most passengers would be happy as well.  Win-win, is it not? Is my point really that difficult to comprehend?

 

It's especially ironic that the mischaracterization is coming from poster who's so quick to criticize other's lack of research, when I think it's pretty clear in my own quote what I said.  It reaches a point where it is no longer worth the effort to even acknowledge it.

You will not see this because you have chosen to block me, but it deserves a response.  I did not mischaracterize your statements.  I did not say that you directly said, or implied, that the CDC should require vaccinations.  I said that you were "implying" that it would be easy to do so as part of the restart and that the CDC should have incorporated a vaccine element into the CSO much earlier, even before we were in sizable distribution of the vaccine.  

 

The CDC is now working with the cruise lines on how vaccines can be incorporated into the CSO.  It will not be a mandate from the CDC, but they will certainly try to get the cruises to do that themselves.  But it has become clear that the cruise lines don't want to do that because they are afraid of the blowback from customers.  Not much courage there and doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence in their desire or ability to effectively enforce any health or safety protocols, including vaccines.

 

Finally, disagreement is not criticism.  And people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  Just saying.

[nocl]

5 hours ago, Daniel A said:

You don't think the White House "inviting" the CDC to participate in a forum isn't the same thing as a requirement?  I just don't see the CDC saying "Thanks, but no thanks" to the White House.  I guess I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

 

Telling the CDC to sit down with the cruise industry is not the same thing as interference.  It is doing the same thing Judges do all the time in civil suits.  The judge isn't interfering but he will require 'conferences' to hash out and settle a problem.  This way, the judge avoids making the final decision.

Are you certain it was not more of the cruise lines wanted a meeting with the White House in an attempt to get around the CDC, but that the White House would not have the meeting without the CDC to demonstrate to the cruise lines that they would have to work with the CDC and the CSO.

 

In any case the meeting have started and we will see what comes out of them. I expect an outcome closer to the CDC's requirements than the cruise lines desired dropping if the CSO.

Edited April 23, 2021 by nocl

[harkinmr]

9 minutes ago, nocl said:

Are you certain it was not more of the cruise lines wanted a meeting with the White House in an attempt to get around the CDC, but that the White House would not have the meeting without the CDC to demonstrate to the cruise lines that they would have to work with the CDC and the CSO.

 

In any case the meeting have started and we will see what comes out of them. I expect an outcome closer to the CDC's requirements than the cruise lines desired dropping if the CSO.

Interesting theory on the background to the meeting nocl.  And I agree.  The CSO is not going away, but it will likely be modified to some extent to incorporate vaccines and how they could impact the restart.

[Brentt_M]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Talk about political posturing...

 

Why are they now including the Department of Homeland Security in the process?  I thought this is all being handled by CDC expertise...

I think someone got their notes mixed up or something.  I believe it is supposed to be the DHHS not DHS.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Brentt_M

[nocl]

5 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Interesting theory on the background to the meeting nocl.  And I agree.  The CSO is not going away, but it will likely be modified to some extent to incorporate vaccines and how they could impact the restart.

The funny thing is that the use of vaccines would only really impact the details in the agreements and the plans for ship board operations, both of which would come from the cruise lines, not really change anything in the CSO itself.